Ya, one reason I phrased my thoughts at the end the way I did was that Nadella makes Microsoft more money than he costs the company. That being said, I think many argue that no one needs to be a billionaire, even if they earn more than that. To me, Nadella's compensation makes sense from Microsoft's perspective. He clearly helps the company grow and hit its targets. Whether it's moral, just, or right to have anyone be that rich is a question people other than Microsoft probably need to answer.
Beg to differ.
*Nobody* has the right to limit what others can honestly earn/achieve.
History has proven over and over that any society that limits what their best and brightest can achieve only encourages them to go elsewhere. Brain drain kills countries. And creates others. US, Canada, Australia are three examples. Argentina was one such until Peron. Now they are donors rather than recipents of excellence. Others, too.
Nadella himself is evidence of the old saying that "india people can succeed everywhere...except in india." That is coming to bite the homeland. As in FOXCONN backing out of a massive semiconductor foundry for lack of skilled technologists in the area. India losses are others' gains.
Any society that limits itself from the full effort of its best is a crippled society.
No artificial limits, please.
For people or companies. There is no such thing as "too successful" as long as it's done honest!y. Note I say honestly and not "fairly". Fair is an artificial limit in itself. As long as it conforms to the legal framework, freedom to succeed is essential for a healthy economy.